CESTAT Kolkata held that customs broker cannot be alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) for non-existence of the exporter at the address. Customs Broker is no required to carry out physical verification of the address of the exporter to met his obligation under Regulation 10(n).
CESTAT Chandigarh held that area-based exemption vide notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 is available as per substitution in the said notification vide notification no. 34/2005 dated 30.09.2005.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount received in the form of penalty amount, forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages is not leviable to service tax.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that once there is a sufficient evidence to prove that the excess duty paid by the assessee has not been passed on to the ultimate buyer, the doctrine of bar of unjust enrichment will not be applicable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that based on Doctrine of Substantial Compliance, exemption benefit of notification no. 23/2004 dated 09.07.2004 and 5/2006 dated 01.03.2006 cannot be denied.
Incentive received for achieving sales target is in the form of a trade discount and same cannot be considered as a service under business auxiliary service category for levy of service tax
mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT find that the demand in the instant case has been raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during the period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence the demand cannot be sustained and the Appeal, thus, succeed on this count.
Mere fact that foreign origin of goods does not ipso facto lead to inevitable conclusion that the same are of smuggled character
Lovely Traders Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Chandigarh) Appellant submits that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the commission received by them. He further submits that BSNL has discharged service tax liability on full value equal to MRP (maximum retail price) which was inclusive of the appellant’s discount/ commission and hence […]
